Appeal No. 2001-2461
Application No. 08/855,059
The examiner admits that Demaray does not disclose the use
of copper as recited in the appealed claims. (Answer, page 4.)
In an attempt to account for this difference, the examiner
relies on the teachings of Blackwell and Murarka. (Id.)
Specifically, it is the examiner’s position that “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the invention of Demaray
et al. to utilize copper instead of aluminum motivated by the
desire to utilize a component with a lower resistivity and
higher electrical conductivity [as taught by Murarka].” (Id. at
page 5.)
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis. As pointed
out by the appellants (substitute appeal brief filed Dec. 26,
2000, page 10), the evidence shows that aluminum and copper have
vastly different properties and, therefore, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have expected different deposition
characteristics. (Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 of Tony
Chiang filed Sep. 21, 1998, paper 10.) The examiner, however,
has not presented any pertinent countervailing evidence.
Although Blackwell does teach the sputtering of copper onto a
free-standing polyimide film at a substrate temperature of about
20 ± 5°C (Example 1), Blackwell prefers and, in fact, teaches
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007